F
fin
Guest
Has anyone read this? Recommended?
- Status
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Not recommended. It is not as anti-semitic as some other books, but any sort of anti-semitism is irrational.
G
GKMotley
Guest
I concur, in one sense, but wouldn’t suggest totally ignoring it. It tells you more about Belloc than the Jews. And, as with Chesterton, Belloc has been among my book collecting hobbies for over 50 years.
F
fin
Guest
Sincr Belloc is considered one of the Christian thinkers, why did he come up with this book? Was it due to the false notions he picked up from his environment?
G
GKMotley
Guest
In a generic and totally unuseful sense, that is true.
But it tells you nothing about how it happened.
But it tells you nothing about how it happened.
F
FiveLinden
Guest
No, it was because he was anti-semitic. He was wrong. His views were evil. Why he had them we do not know. But his views need to be condemned, not excused, even if he himself believed them honestly.
E
exnihilo
Guest
I’ve not read it but Belloc is always interesting to read. I’d venture to guess the charges of ‘anti semitism’ are overblown.
T
tafan2
Guest
I have read it. I do not Belloc was anti-Semitic. What he wrote, especially describing the actual “Problem of the Jews” would have seemed rather accurate to anyone who was not anti-Semitic at the time. It would have seem pro-jew to anyone who was anti-Semitic at the time. Simply put, there was a “problem of the jews” in Europe and had been for centuries. It was not the Jews’ fault, but to say Europe did not know how to properly live with jews would be denying history. Belloc described this, in a way that seems poorly worded today, but would not have been so earlier. Indeed, you can find pro-Zionist jews who described the cycle of Jewish persecution in the late 19th century similiarly: Jews are accepted in a country or place, jews migrate to that place, jews become persecuted, jews are forced to move to some other place. Cycle repeats.
You can read his essay, written very early in WWII, when even in England there was much debate of continuing a war with Germany, entitled The Catholic and the War, where he justifies WWII from a Catholic perspective and the treatment of the Jews is one of his reasons. This was before the horrors of the Holocaust were known, the English government was explicitly not using the persecution of the Jews as a justification of the war, and the position would not have been that popular.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BKM3YIC/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
You can read his essay, written very early in WWII, when even in England there was much debate of continuing a war with Germany, entitled The Catholic and the War, where he justifies WWII from a Catholic perspective and the treatment of the Jews is one of his reasons. This was before the horrors of the Holocaust were known, the English government was explicitly not using the persecution of the Jews as a justification of the war, and the position would not have been that popular.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BKM3YIC/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
F
fin
Guest
Interesting. What were the reasons why Jews were persecuted, as per Belloc?
Because it seems due to envy. Other people saw they were becoming rich, got envious because they were ‘outsiders’, so the persecutions began.
Also, did Belloc had a suggestion or prescription on how they could have had avoided persecution (at that time)?
Because it seems due to envy. Other people saw they were becoming rich, got envious because they were ‘outsiders’, so the persecutions began.
Also, did Belloc had a suggestion or prescription on how they could have had avoided persecution (at that time)?
T
tafan2
Guest
Yes, Belloc attributes much of it to envy due to their success in any area they tended to migrate. This was the part where he laid partial “blame” to the Jews.
Note: I am not saying it is a perfect book, I just believe that Belloc has been unjustly criticized for the book. The OP asked if it was recommended, I would say only if one wants to come to a better understanding of Belloc’s supposed anti-semiticism. Having said that, I think it needs to be read with a clear understanding of Jewish life throughout Europe, which we don’t have. We hear of things like the “Jewish ghettos” and don’t really understand what those were in various times and places. For this understanding I strongly recommend Paul Johnson’s excellent book “History of the Jews”. It is a great book.
Note: I am not saying it is a perfect book, I just believe that Belloc has been unjustly criticized for the book. The OP asked if it was recommended, I would say only if one wants to come to a better understanding of Belloc’s supposed anti-semiticism. Having said that, I think it needs to be read with a clear understanding of Jewish life throughout Europe, which we don’t have. We hear of things like the “Jewish ghettos” and don’t really understand what those were in various times and places. For this understanding I strongly recommend Paul Johnson’s excellent book “History of the Jews”. It is a great book.
F
fin
Guest
I’m the OP 
What I am trying to say is that, given that they had general success to wherever area they went, it is unfair to ‘blame’ them because it isn’t their fault that they’re successful, right?
I mean, should one deliberately ‘fail’ so that other won’t be envious? What is the solution then?
What I am trying to say is that, given that they had general success to wherever area they went, it is unfair to ‘blame’ them because it isn’t their fault that they’re successful, right?
I mean, should one deliberately ‘fail’ so that other won’t be envious? What is the solution then?
G
GKMotley
Guest
This is a nuanced approach to the question (not the Jewish question, that is), but it is, in my opinion, incomplete. The persecution that, historically, the Jews met with in Europe related, au fond, to the concept of the Jew as Other. Not assimilated, not assimilable, the eternal “Other”. Both Belloc and Chesterton speak clearly and directly to these ideas. A tribe within the national polity and culture, but alien to them and loyal only unto itself. Various ideas were advanced as to how that might best be treated, from segregation within the greater society, to a form of Jewish homeland (hence, support of the early Zionist movement).
I’ve collected Belloc and Chesterton (among a lot of other folk) for over 50 years. My holdings, of their works, and works on them, are extensive. Belloc and Chesterton were both anti-semitic, but that requires a careful definition of what that means in context. It is not the antisemitism of the total European history, the blood libel or the ghetto, or the discrimination of the Sabbath prediche coatte , for example. It is not the antisemitism of Nazi Germany. But neither is it the “Gentlemen’s Agreement” type of “not our sort of people”. It is a point on a continuum that can begin with consideration of the Jewish situation, to the Jewish condition, to the Jewish problem and wind up at a Final Solution. That last was not where Belloc (or Chesterton) was.
I’ve collected Belloc and Chesterton (among a lot of other folk) for over 50 years. My holdings, of their works, and works on them, are extensive. Belloc and Chesterton were both anti-semitic, but that requires a careful definition of what that means in context. It is not the antisemitism of the total European history, the blood libel or the ghetto, or the discrimination of the Sabbath prediche coatte , for example. It is not the antisemitism of Nazi Germany. But neither is it the “Gentlemen’s Agreement” type of “not our sort of people”. It is a point on a continuum that can begin with consideration of the Jewish situation, to the Jewish condition, to the Jewish problem and wind up at a Final Solution. That last was not where Belloc (or Chesterton) was.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
Of course not, and Belloc did not begrudge them their success. At least that I remember, its been a while since I read the book. His point was that they were always persecuted because of that success. As I said, this is not the fault of the jews, but that is how many today read Belloc’s writing.
G
GKMotley
Guest
I agree with the concept that one needs an overview of Jewish life, as lived under Christian authority, through the 19th century. When it begins to change. I found Kertzer’s THE KIDNAPPING OF EDGARDO MORTARA a particular informative look at a snapshot in time, and one not so very long ago.
G
GKMotley
Guest
If you want to see how Belloc/Chesterton treated the idea of Jewish success, it would be well illustrated in their position on the Marconi Scandal.
T
tafan2
Guest
Yes, there is no doubt that the Jew was considered “the Other”, as you put it. IIRC, Chesterton referred to them as foriegners in any nation of Europe (or something to that effect). I don’t remember Belloc saying something like this explicitly, but that may be my memory failing me.
However, and this is where Johnson’s book comes into play. Amoung the Jews, throughout the history of Europe, they pretty much considered themselves the other also. Even this was more due to the fault of the rulers and majority people in any given land they settled, them to their own actions. If everyone treats you as an outsider, you will consider yourself that way. The “final solution” was not even close on your continuum to where Chesterton or Belloc were.
And remember, they considered Europe to be Christendom (ie remember the quote “the faith is Europe and Europe is the faith”). And indeed, for a long time Europe was not considered Europe. Everyone lived in a civilization, roughly the borders of Europe, which was Christendom, the land of Christians. This feeling did not immediately disappear among people just due to the Enlightenment. So, that being the case, any non-Christian was going to be an outsider.
I think in a very real sense, the attitude towards Jews by Christians is much more understandable than the anti-Semitism displayed by the folks of the Enlightenment, who wanted to abandon the concept of Christendom. They had no reason for persecution, yet persecution became worse under them. This was unexpected to many in the 19th century. Early Zionism was a product of Eastern Europe and jews in Western Europe did not support it because they believed under the enlightment they could finally assimilate into society. It wasn’t until the Dryfus affair in France, the country where they expected assimilation to be the easiest to achieve, that many Western European Jews started supporting Zionism.
However, and this is where Johnson’s book comes into play. Amoung the Jews, throughout the history of Europe, they pretty much considered themselves the other also. Even this was more due to the fault of the rulers and majority people in any given land they settled, them to their own actions. If everyone treats you as an outsider, you will consider yourself that way. The “final solution” was not even close on your continuum to where Chesterton or Belloc were.
And remember, they considered Europe to be Christendom (ie remember the quote “the faith is Europe and Europe is the faith”). And indeed, for a long time Europe was not considered Europe. Everyone lived in a civilization, roughly the borders of Europe, which was Christendom, the land of Christians. This feeling did not immediately disappear among people just due to the Enlightenment. So, that being the case, any non-Christian was going to be an outsider.
I think in a very real sense, the attitude towards Jews by Christians is much more understandable than the anti-Semitism displayed by the folks of the Enlightenment, who wanted to abandon the concept of Christendom. They had no reason for persecution, yet persecution became worse under them. This was unexpected to many in the 19th century. Early Zionism was a product of Eastern Europe and jews in Western Europe did not support it because they believed under the enlightment they could finally assimilate into society. It wasn’t until the Dryfus affair in France, the country where they expected assimilation to be the easiest to achieve, that many Western European Jews started supporting Zionism.
T
tafan2
Guest
Very good counter point.
G
GKMotley
Guest
I never suggested that my guys stood anywhere near the Final Solution. But it is a continuum, and a problem may suggest the need for different solutions, to different people.
Your memory is accurate. Chesterton’s views on the Jews were not such that he saw them as culturally, ethnically, or religiously distinct, in the sense other such groups theoretically could be, but as sui generis, both as a group, and as a group in any particular nation in which they found themselves. A Jew could not be an Englishman, or a Frenchman, in the sense that Chesterton himself was an Englishman, by the simple fact of being Jewish. Jews only held allegiance to their own tribe, or fellow religionists, and worked only for their good, mainly behind the scenes, and most mainly as cosmopolitan financiers. The irony of the basic correspondence between this view of Jewry as “bad” Britains (and Belloc’s views were more strident, yet), and the British establishment view of Roman Catholics, in the Elizabethean period (that they could not be loyal Britains because they held primary allegiance to their non-British religionists), is worth remarking. They were Other.
Your last 2 paras I can accede to, in some senses, not so in others. But I am out the door.
Your memory is accurate. Chesterton’s views on the Jews were not such that he saw them as culturally, ethnically, or religiously distinct, in the sense other such groups theoretically could be, but as sui generis, both as a group, and as a group in any particular nation in which they found themselves. A Jew could not be an Englishman, or a Frenchman, in the sense that Chesterton himself was an Englishman, by the simple fact of being Jewish. Jews only held allegiance to their own tribe, or fellow religionists, and worked only for their good, mainly behind the scenes, and most mainly as cosmopolitan financiers. The irony of the basic correspondence between this view of Jewry as “bad” Britains (and Belloc’s views were more strident, yet), and the British establishment view of Roman Catholics, in the Elizabethean period (that they could not be loyal Britains because they held primary allegiance to their non-British religionists), is worth remarking. They were Other.
Your last 2 paras I can accede to, in some senses, not so in others. But I am out the door.
T
tafan2
Guest
What part did I write that you do not agree with? I didn’t mean to be that much of a difference, I would like to understand and perhaps change my answers if they are ambiguous. I am a fervent fan of the Jewish faith, I have a lot of respect for Jewish people throughout history, and I am not trying to be an apologist for any anti-Semitism, at any level. It is a stain on Christendom, no doubt about it. I am just trrying to explain it in a historical perspective. So if I come across contrary to this, or in the least bit anti-Semitic, I want to reconsider my responses.
Last edited:
F
FiveLinden
Guest
This is simply not true. Jews were on the whole poor and working class or peasants in the European countries where they lived under the contest threat of Christian persecution. Please do not repeat this sort of falsehood. Alternatively, if I am wrong, do you have any evidence for this claim of general Jewish ‘success’?
- Status